When we undertake to learn the history or the state of culture among the Incas, we are entering on a difficult subject. Of their history, we know but very little more than is given in this outline; and owing to the complete absence of all records, we can not expect to know very much. Garcillasso draws such an inviting picture of the happy government of the Incas, that we would suppose that no rebellion or insurrection would ever occur. It seems, however, that their government was as much subject to such trials as any. Mr. Forbes tells us that “the Aymaras never submitted tamely to their Peruvian masters, but from time to time gave them much trouble by attempting to recover their independence.” And M. Reville tells us of the Incas that, “more than once they had to suppress terrible insurrections.” And we shall see, further on, that the probabilities are that the various tribes composing this so-called empire were not more compact and united than were the tribes composing the Mexican Empire.
Shortly before the conquest, the Incas had reached their zenith of power. Huayna Capac, who died about 1525, was in reality the last of the Inca chiefs. Under his management the tribes as far north as Quito were reduced to tribute. The story goes that shortly before his death he divided the empire between two of his sons. One, Huascar, the rightful heir to the throne; the other, Atahualpa, half-brother to Huascar. His mother was daughter of the last king (?) of Quito. Her father had been forced to submit to the victorious Huayna Capac. This division of the Incarial Empire, was not at all to the liking of either Huascar or Atahualpa. They both wished to be sole Inca. Civil war was the result. Atahualpa, by treachery, had taken his brother prisoner, and would doubtless have achieved his ambition, but just then Pizarro invaded the country, and the reign of the Incas was over.
Thus far, the story. We very much doubt whether this expresses the facts of the case. There is no question, of course, that civil war was in progress when the Spaniards arrived, which war, by the way, was a very fortunate thing for the Spaniards; but we do not know enough about the government of the Incas to know whether Huayna Capac could bequeath any powers to his sons. About all we are justified in saying is, that on his death, two persons (they were very likely brothers, and sons of Huayna Capac) aspired to the chieftaincy of the Incas, and, failing to agree, resorted to war to settle the matter.
The question is, how far back in the unrecorded past can we follow tradition? Huayna Capac is thought to have been chief for about fifty years. His predecessor is said to have been one Tupac Yupanqui. Velasco, an early writer on the Peruvians, thinks he was chief for about thirty-six years. As this would carry us back nearly one hundred years, it must be evident we have gone about as far as we can place any reliance on tradition. However, the third chief, going backwards, was also called Yupanqui, sometimes denominated “Yupanqui the Great,” and his reign (?) takes us back to about the year 1400. “Beyond this point,” says M. Castaing, “we fall into a mythological era.” We fully agree with him. We can not think there is any special value in accounts of events said to happen before that time—that is, for historical purposes.
That there were victorious chiefs, conducting victorious forays before that date, is, of course, admitted. That the names of many of the chiefs have come down to us, as well as some of their notable achievements is quite possible. It is also evident that some mythological personages would appear in tradition as “reigning Incas.” It is equally plain that neither Garcillasso, nor any of the Spanish writers, had any clear ideas of these ancient times or events. All traditions finally settle on Manco Capac as the first chief of the Incas. M. Castaing says he “is but an allegory of the period of formation.”21 The date of the accession of this mythological chief is given by most authorities as about the year 1000. M. Castaing thinks it was in the middle of the twelfth century. It does not make much difference which date the reader concludes to accept—one will do as well as the other.22
Let us turn our attention to the culture of the Incas, and their state of government. Here we would expect to be on firm ground. We would expect the Spanish writers to give us reliable accounts of the state of society of the people they conquered. But, as Mr. Squier remarks, the overthrow of the Peruvian government “was so sudden and complete that the chroniclers had hardly time to set down the events which took place before their own eyes, and had little leisure, or perhaps inclination, to make a careful investigation into the principles of their civil and religious polity. As a consequence, this work has devolved upon the laborious student and archæologist of a later time.” In other words, we are to compare the accounts given us by the early writers with our present knowledge of Indian society.
We have already made the statement that the Inca were a tribe of Indians. But, if they were a tribe, did they have the usual subdivisions of a tribe—which, we remember, are the phratry and gens? The Spanish writers say nothing about such divisions. This is not strange. They said nothing about the phratries and gentes of the Mexicans; and yet they were in existence. Neither did the English mention the institution of the phratries and gentes among the Iroquois; and yet they were fully developed. We answer, that the Inca tribe were divided into both phratries and gentes. It is necessary to show what grounds we have for such belief. It is well to have a little better understanding of the surroundings of this tribe.
The isolated section of country which they occupied is about seventy miles long by sixty in width. “The proper name for the aboriginal people of this tract,” says Mr. Markham, “is Incas.” This word must have been at first the title for chief—for all the chiefs in this section were called Incas; but, in process of time, the name was assumed as the special title of the tribe at Cuzco. Mr. Markham gives us further the names of seventeen lineages who occupied this valley. Whether a lineage was a tribe or not we can not decide. We will now confine our attention to the ruling tribe at Cuzco.
The Spaniards noticed that Cuzco was divided into two parts, called respectively Upper and Lower Cuzco. Garcillasso tells us that this division was made as follows. Manco-Capac with his wife and queen were children of the Sun, sent to civilize the Indians, who, before their arrival, were a very degraded sort of savages. From Cuzco this sun-descended couple went their different ways—the king to the north, the queen to the south—“speaking to all the people they met in the wilderness, and telling them how their father, the Sun, had sent them from heaven to be the rulers and benefactors of the inhabitants of all that land; . . . and, in pursuance of these commands, they had come to bring them out of the forests and deserts to live in villages.” This sounded so good to the wild tribes, that they “assembled in great numbers, both men and women,” and set out to follow their exhorters.23
The tribe that followed the king settled Upper Cuzco; while the queen’s converts settled Lower Cuzco. This division was not made so that those living in one half should have any special privileges over the other—for they were all to be equal, like brothers. The division was solely in order “that they might be a perpetual memory of the fact that the inhabitants of one were assembled by the king, and the other by the queen.” The only difference between them was, “that the people of Upper Cuzco should be looked upon and represented as elder brothers, and those of Lower Cuzco as younger brothers.”